Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have decided to appoint the new Board Members listed at Annex A.
	
		
			 RDA Name 
			 Advantage West Midlands (AWM) John Crabtree 
			  Dr David Brown 
			  Cllr Kenneth Taylor 
			 One NorthEast (ONE) Kate Welch 
			 Yorkshire Forward (YF) Barry Dodd 
		
	
	The new appointments for Advantage West Midlands began on 13 February 2006 and the new appointments for One Northeast (ONE) and Yorkshire Forward (YF) will begin on 13 March 2006. All of the appointments will expire on 13 December 2008. I have placed further details of the five new appointments in the Library of both Houses. All of them were made in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Lord Drayson: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In response to recommendations made in reports by the Directorate of Operational Capability, House of Commons Defence Committee and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, and as part of the MoD's continuing drive to improve its standard of care towards its recruits and trainees, I have decided to create a single Army Training and Recruiting Agency Staff Leadership School (ASLS) within the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's initial training group in order to improve the preparation of training and supervisory staff. I am minded to place this within an existing Army Training Regiment (ATR) site at Pirbright as this location not only meets the key business requirements for the creation of an ASLS, but also provides the best value for money option for defence. Additionally, in order to contribute to meeting overall departmental funding priorities, I am minded to transfer Army training functions currently undertaken at. ATR Lichfield to the expanded ATR Pirbright site. This transfer would take place subject to finding an alternate defence use for the Lichfield site. These moves would also afford an opportunity, within work considering possible future Army command structures, to transfer out of that command the headquarters of the initial training group. I am minded to move this headquarters to the improved accommodation at Pirbright since the expanded ATR site would constitute a natural focal point for the headquarters. Trade union consultation on these proposals will be undertaken.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In May last year I set out to the House how Europe must adapt to the changing balance of global economic activity and the rise of fast-growing emerging economies. Following the end of the UK presidency I am pleased to be able to report significant progress on this agenda at ECOFIN that will help equip Europe to meet the global economic challenge.
	Better Regulation and Enterprise
	Regulatory reform was at the heart of our presidency programme. We made good progress over the six months of our presidency, including:
	agreement to simplify more than 1,400 rules and regulations;
	withdrawal of 68 proposed EU regulations;
	a commitment to test the competitiveness impact of all new EU regulations in impact assessments;
	a commitment for administrative burdens to be measured in all EU proposals and a call to set targets to reduce burdens on business; and
	agreement on the next steps for the better regulation agenda with the Austrian and Finnish presidencies, including a focus on risk-based regulation and business consultation.
	The UK presidency also launched the first European centres of enterprise competition which rolls out the successful British annual competition for local and regional authorities to reward initiatives to support entrepreneurship across the whole EU.
	Jobs and Growth
	At the Manchester ECOFIN informal meeting in September, Finance Ministers and business leaders reached consensus on the reforms needed to deliver stronger economic growth and social justice in Europe in the face of rapid global economic change.
	Subsequently, in October I published a report on Global Europe: Full Employment Europe setting out proposals for major reforms to enable Europe to grow faster and tackle unemployment, and member states also published the first Lisbon National Reform Programmes as part of the re-launched Lisbon strategy. In the context of responding to globalisation, Finance Ministers reviewed the programmes in December as the priority for reform, adopting council conclusions confirming that:
	globalisation represents opportunities for Europe provided we put in place the policies needed to realise these;
	labour market reform is key, but policies need to reflect the different social models in member states; and
	alongside structural reform, we need an ambitious and balanced multilateral trade agreement.
	Financing for Development
	As part of the EU's commitment to a more outward-looking Europe, Finance Ministers made significant progress in finance for developing countries, including:
	Agreeing to double annual aid from 2004 to 2010, and member states that joined the EU before 2002 agreed to reach 0.7 per cent ODA/GNI by 2015.
	Launching the pilot International Finance Facility for Immunisation on 9 September with the participation of the, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden.
	Agreeing that those member states who were willing would go ahead with launching the International Finance Facility and an air passenger levy for development.
	Agreeing an ambitious EU statement on development for the UN Millennium Summit review in September.
	Pro-active competition policy
	The European Commission reported to ECOFIN in October on the launch of sectoral inquiries into market failures in energy and financial services.
	The Commission published its report on implementation of the gas and electricity directives in November, and published its interim findings on the energy sector competition inquiry on 16 February. The Energy Council agreed in December on the need to complete the implementation of existing legislation and improve energy market competition, and noted the Commission's determination to take forward work on energy liberalisation.
	The UK presidency hosted a successful conference on state aids, and the Commission's June communication setting out its State Aid Action Plan is in line with UK reform priorities.
	International co-operation
	As part of our outward-looking agenda, following the ambitious economic declaration at the EU-US Summit, we agreed three presidency conclusions in October and the inaugural EU-US Economic Ministerial in November agreed a comprehensive action plan, including:
	first regulatory co-operation forum meetings in spring 2006;
	a new strategy on intellectual property rights enforcement; and
	co-operation on innovation.
	A joint EU-US statement set out future priorities for financial markets regulatory dialogue to accelerate progress towards a barrier-free transatlantic financial marketplace. The European Commission has identified an EU-India financial services dialogue as a priority for 2005–10.
	The UK presidency also worked through the European Union to build support for economic regeneration as a contribution to the Middle East Peace process.
	Financial Services
	The UK presidency set the shape of financial services policy in the European Union for the medium term, including:
	endorsement of the European Commission's EU financial services policy 2005–10 founded on better regulation principles;
	reaching a first reading deal on the Capital Requirements Directive which introduces modern risk based capital rules for EU banks and investment firms;
	the Lamfalussy Committee chairmen reporting to ECOFIN in October on how they plan to co-operate more effectively to reduce burdens on business. They signed a memorandum of understanding on closer co-operation. The Finnish presidency has indicated that it will take this forward; and
	completing work on the Third Money Laundering Directive and reaching a council common position on the Funds Transfers Regulation—both adopting a risk based approach to combating terrorist financing and financial crime.

Lord Adonis: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Ms Anne Lambert, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK during the Education and Youth Council in Brussels.
	At Education Council in the morning:
	The Commission presented its annual progress report on the Lisbon strategy, together with the joint report of the Council and the Commission on progress under the Education and Training 2010 work programme: Modernising Education and Training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe. The council adopted the joint report, along with a short key messages document based on this report to forward to the spring European council. Ministers stressed in particular the importance of education and training in the Lisbon strategy, while noting the need to maintain a balance between the social and economic objectives of education policies. In discussion, Ministers warned against setting input targets for investment in education and training, which would not by themselves improve the effectiveness of spending. They also noted the importance of increasing private investment in higher education, where Europe currently lags behind its main competitors.
	Ministers had an exchange of views on the basis of the Commission's proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the council on key competences for lifelong learning, on which the presidency hopes for general agreement at the May council. Ministers were asked to comment on the proposed framework of key competences, and on how they are addressing the acquisition of key competences at national level. The UK tabled a position paper on the recommendation, setting out UK policy on skills development. In general, Ministers welcomed the key competences framework as a useful voluntary reference tool for member states to use when developing their curricula and strategies for lifelong learning. Ministers emphasised the importance of giving special attention to disadvantaged groups, and stressed the need to continue to share good practice on developing key competences within their lifelong learning strategies.
	There followed a policy debate on the establishment of a European Indicator of Language Competence. The presidency noted that conclusions on this issue would be tabled at the May council. All delegations welcomed the Commission's initiative of taking forward the commitment made by heads of state and government in Barcelona in 2002 to establishing the indicator and agreed to set up an advisory board composed of member states' representatives and experts (including from the Council of Europe) in order to take forward developmental work. UK (Anne Lambert) agreed that more information on practical and financial implications is needed before member states can work on implementation. Ministers were also asked to give their views about the level of testing and the languages to be tested. There was a consensus towards testing at the end of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) Level 2 (lower secondary education, equivalent to age 14 in the UK), which is favoured by the UK. Most member states agreed with the presidency's suggestion of testing only those official languages of the Union most widely taught in the first survey round, but the majority took the view that member states should be free to choose which of those languages to test in their country. The UK tabled a position paper in reply to the presidency questions, which also stated a preference of a flexible window 2009–11 to be agreed for when the first tests would take place.
	Under any other business the commission presented its communications on "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning" and "Developing a knowledge flagship: the European Institute of Technology". Ms van der Hoeven, Netherlands Minister of Education, also presented plans for a Euroskills competition in 2008.
	During lunch, Ministers discussed the Commission's communication "A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism" and outlined their national strategies. For most, English was the key foreign language essential to give people entry into the world of work. But several also felt that learning two foreign languages is essential for multilingualism.
	At the Youth Council after lunch:
	Ministers discussed the youth aspects of the Commission's annual progress report on the Lisbon strategy Time to Move Up a Gear, and adopted council conclusions on the implementation of the European Pact for Youth. These conclusions will be sent to the spring European council as a contribution towards the Lisbon strategy. Ministers emphasised the importance of the youth pact in developing a coordinated approach to policies for young people in the context of the Lisbon strategy. Ministers found the pact to be a useful initiative, highlighting the specific problems faced by young people (for example in terms of access to the labour market) and the importance of a quality education and information for increasing their opportunities.
	Ministers also agreed that the open method of co-ordination in the field of youth should be pursued at European level so that they could continue to exchange good practice and information. They stressed the importance of engaging young people actively in the development and implementation of policies that affect them.

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	ODPM is today publishing a consultation paper on the handling of certain planning applications and appeals relating to listed buildings in England. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Any comments are requested by 24 May.
	Listed building consent appeals
	Most listed building consent and enforcement appeals are currently determined by planning inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to determine appeals on his behalf. However, those relating to buildings listed as Grade 1 and Grade 2* are reserved for determination by the Secretary of State himself, following consideration of a report from a specialist inspector.
	While the buildings affected are of national importance, many of the appeals involve small scale proposals and it is rare for the Secretary of State to disagree with the recommendations of his specialist inspector. We consider that transferring jurisdiction to determine these appeals to inspectors will help to speed up one area of the planning system, giving greater certainty to local authorities, developers and owners of listed buildings, but without putting at risk buildings which are an important part of our national heritage.
	However there will, on occasion, be appeals involving Grade 1 or Grade 2* listed buildings that the Secretary of State will wish to recover and determine himself. This will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.
	Notification of heritage applications
	Currently a local planning authority, other than one in Greater London, may not grant listed building consent until the Secretary of State has decided whether to require referral of the application for his own determination. The Secretary of State may also direct that notification is not required in respect of certain categories of application.
	While remaining committed to the protection of listed buildings, the Government are keen that unnecessary delays, and the additional bureaucracy for local authorities and applicants, are removed from the system. We therefore now propose that listed building consent applications received by local planning authorities outside Greater London, to which English Heritage has raised no written objections, will not require notification to the Secretary of State. Where English Heritage has expressed concerns, the Secretary of State would still require notification. Applications within Greater London will still be referred to English Heritage.
	The proposal will not apply to applications made by either a local authority or English Heritage for listed building consent, which will continue to be determined by the Secretary of State.

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today the Government are publishing the report of the study team from the University of Reading and Arup who were commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and Welsh Assembly Government to review the operation and effectiveness of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development.
	ODPM published the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development in November 2002. The code was produced jointly by central and local government and the mobile phone industry. It provides advice on consultation procedures between operators, local authorities and local people.
	The key conclusions of the review are that the introduction of the Code of Best Practice has significantly improved the process of planning for mobile network development and where operators and their agents comply with the code, it is considered to be working well. The review found that local planning authority involvement varies considerably in terms of their compliance with the code and involvement in planning for mobile network development.
	The researchers also found that community representatives feel that the code as currently drafted does not offer them assurance that their responses to any consultation undertaken will actually be taken on board by the operators.
	These findings led the researchers to recommend that the Code of Best Practice should be revised to build on many of the positive aspects to improve it. The report also recommends the code should be strengthened and that the status of some of the guidance in the code should be made more formal, in the context of a revision of planning policy guidance on telecommunications and that there should be an independent adjudication body to consider complaints.
	The Government will consider the report's recommendations within the ongoing review of the planning arrangements for electronic communication developments.
	Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Further copies can be downloaded from http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1163923.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Phoenix Development Fund is a time-limited initiative designed to explore good practice in delivering business support and to find innovative ways to reach out to communities considered hard to reach by mainstream providers. It was not designed to provide long term or core funding for business support organisations. The Small Business Service (SBS, an agency of the DTI) will not be contracting for any new activities under this programme when existing contracts end in March 2006. We are currently discussing with RDAs on the arrangements for local management of the fund.
	Since 2000, the Phoenix programme has done some excellent work to help budding entrepreneurs who face particular barriers when starting or growing a business. The main beneficiaries of the programme come from communities which are under-represented in business and/or live in deprived neighbourhoods. The programme is made up of two elements: the Phoenix Challenge Fund, which supports Community Development Finance Institutions; and the Phoenix Development Fund, which supports projects aimed at finding innovative ways to provide business support to the above communities.
	It has been decided that the Challenge Fund will continue as a national budget of the Small Business Service for a further two years but in the main will be managed by the RDAs, which have also received a contribution to the "single pot" for 2006–07 and 2007–08 for this purpose.
	The Phoenix Development Fund has been successful and we now need to ensure that the innovative approaches that have been developed are built upon by mainstream providers of business support. The knowledge and good practice accumulated over the years in dozens of projects funded by the PDF is being collated and catalogued and we will be working with stakeholders and partners over the next year to ensure this legacy is embedded in mainstream provision of business support.
	Delivery of initiatives to encourage more enterprise in under-represented groups and deprived communities is increasingly managed at the regional development agencies and local authorities in line with their wider responsibilities for delivery of business support and economic regeneration. RDAs have already been awarded an increase to their funds from April 2006 in recognition of their increased responsibility that, although it will not replace the national funding, will augment their existing provision. In addition, the Government have introduced the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative that will provide £300 million over three years to local councils in the most deprived areas to encourage the development of more enterprising communities and this programme will benefit from the lessons learnt through the Phoenix Development Fund as well as being joined up with the continuing work of the Phoenix Challenge Fund and the Community Development Finance institutions that it supports.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have been considering what amendments might be needed to the statutory redundancy payments scheme to bring it into line with the EU Employment Directive, which requires member states to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of age, among other things, in the employment field. The current scheme contains three age bands and directs greatest financial support to older workers and those with long service.
	We have been discussing the way forward with key stakeholders over the past few months, including the CBI, EEF and TUC. In the course of those discussions the Government became concerned that a system using a single multiplier might not meet our overall policy aims. We have therefore carefully examined the rationale for the current scheme and have come to the conclusion that this provides the best fit with our aims.
	Evidence the Government have gathered demonstrates that younger, prime age and older workers fall into three distinct economic categories, with older workers facing a particularly difficult position in the employment market. Young workers tend not to be out of work for long and see only a small fall in pay when switching jobs. Older workers are much more likely to become long-term unemployed, and to experience a substantial fall in pay when finding a new job. Prime age workers fall into the middle. We therefore believe that it is sensible for the level of support provided through the scheme to reflect these three categories. A system using a single multiplier would leave a significant group of older workers substantially worse off than at present, and we believe this would be unacceptable. Even if a substantial amount of money were injected into the scheme so as to leave older workers no worse off, the enhanced benefits to younger workers are not justified by their position in the employment market.
	The directive provides for the possibility of member states providing for different treatment on the grounds of age, where this difference of treatment is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including employment policy. We have looked at this question very closely and are confident that retaining the age bands is permitted by the directive.
	The Government have, however, decided to remove the lower and upper age limits in the redundancy scheme (at 18 and 65 respectively) and the taper at the age of 64 because they believe, as employees are living and working longer, these cannot be justified under the directive. A small group of amendments to the scheme will be set out in the forthcoming age regulations, which will be laid before Parliament shortly.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On 1 March 2006 I made an order under Section 2 (6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of Divisions in Somerset, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex as follows:
	with effect from 2 March 2006,
	Frome and Wells and Somerton Divisions are merged into Frome, Somerton and Wells Division.
	Aylesbury and Dacorum Divisions are merged into Aylesbury and Dacorum Division.
	Watford, St Albans and Barnet Divisions are merged into Mid Hertfordshire Division.
	Clacton and Colchester Divisions are merged into North East Essex Division.
	All the amalgamations were made at the request of the general commissioners in all the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions concerned. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Libraries of both Houses.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of the report of the annual meeting to review the Compact held on 30 November 2005.
	The meeting marked real progress on the Compact, which sets out the rules for engagement between government and the sector, and affirmed the Compact as being at the heart of the relationship.
	The meeting also marked a point of significant change, with work to begin on Compact Plus, to strengthen the Compact, and the appointment of an independent Compact Commissioner. The commissioner will oversee how the Compact, including Compact Plus, operates and guide public and voluntary and community sector bodies in their dealings with each other.
	This will be a challenging year, and we are determined to drive forward the work underway to build stronger relationships between the public and voluntary and community sectors. We plan to give greater weight to the Compact, so it can achieve far more for the benefit of everyone involved and result in real community gain.